Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
#26 Old 30th Jan 2008 at 11:58 PM
I think we have neither sufficient baseline data or accurate enough computer models to definitively state "yea" or "nay" as far as global warming is concerned. I think more and better study is needed and in the meantime decreasing atmospheric carbon outputs at a rate that won't jack up the world's economy probably would be a good thing, just as alternative energy sources as still a good idea, since one day we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Better to work on figuring it out now, instead of waiting until the tank runs dry.

I recall, not all that long ago, back in the 70s, when I was in school and the talk was all about global cooling and how we were headed towards a new Ice Age. Granted the level of conversation didn't quite get as intense as it is now, but the environmental movement still managed to get themselves worked up into a lather over the whole thing.
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#27 Old 31st Jan 2008 at 12:15 AM
The comments about Al Gore's lifestyle annoy me. Yeah, he should practice what he preaches, and he should do his best to be eco-friendly, like we all should, but in the long run, the good work he has done overshadows his mistakes. I mean, one extravagant house or car =/= the huge amount of education and activism he's done.

As for the lack of "concrete evidence" of global warming, um, look at the melting ice caps and glaciers and the increasing world temperature. Sure, argue that humans didn't cause it if you want (*bites tongue*) but don't argue that it isn't happening, because it clearly is.

Forum Resident
#28 Old 31st Jan 2008 at 2:59 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Daisie
The comments about Al Gore's lifestyle annoy me. Yeah, he should practice what he preaches, and he should do his best to be eco-friendly, like we all should, but in the long run, the good work he has done overshadows his mistakes. I mean, one extravagant house or car =/= the huge amount of education and activism he's done.
Little known fact many people probable don't know about Gore. How Gore buys his "carbon offsets,". According to the the Tennessean newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management.

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for those offsets he loves to wave about claiming he is taking action to save the planet.

Gore is chairman of the firm, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Quote:
As for the lack of "concrete evidence" of global warming, um, look at the melting ice caps and glaciers and the increasing world temperature. Sure, argue that humans didn't cause it if you want (*bites tongue*) but don't argue that it isn't happening, because it clearly is.
Since every one keeps harping on the "melting ice caps". Then lets look at them. And I want you to explain it then!

Quote:
Antarctic ice caps growing - Brief Article
by J. Michael Waller, Wade-Hahn Chan, Daniel George

Science starts to have trouble with ideology when facts start getting in the way. Contrary to the theory of global warming, NASA satellite observations have determined that during the last 20 years the ice in the Antarctic has not melted but, in fact, has increased. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Annals of Glaciology.

The study was done by Claire Parkinson, a NASA climatologist who has analyzed the role of sea ice in the global-climate system since 1979. She measured the duration of Antarctic ice seasons--the time during which ice covers at least 15 percent of the area--and found nearly twice as much land that had seasons increasing by one day per year between 1979 and 1999 than areas where the opposite occurred.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Field Researcher
#29 Old 31st Jan 2008 at 4:03 AM
As I said earlier, the only difference between Gore's Carbon Credits and the Medieviel Catholic Church's Indulgences is the amount of words in their name.

Everytime I hold a discussion with people who believe global warming is the next greatest disaster (and in my major, there are alot of people I talk to about this), and assert my opinion that thirty years of (reliable) data is not enough compared with thousands of years climate and that I would simply like more data before I make a conclusion, I am treated like the kid who told his uber-right wing christian parents he doesn't believe in God.

Judging by your post, Daisie, you did read through the whole thread. Almish Nick's ice cap dilemia was mentioned earlier, but people who state that global warming is the next big threat refuse to address it. I want just one person to try and tell me why it is melting in the north and staying the same, even growing, in the south (because CO2 mixture in the atmosphere is an even mix, all parts of the world should experience the same warming trends.).

PS, Nick, do you mind sending me a link? I have a teacher in the subject who might be able to offer some answer. I am curious as to why that is.
Scholar
#30 Old 31st Jan 2008 at 5:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Amish Nick
Since every one keeps harping on the "melting ice caps". Then lets look at them. And I want you to explain it then!

Most of those increases occurred in areas around the Ross Ice Shelf and further inland. These are close to the poles, and mostly not in contact with the ocean, the ice there has indeed been increasing.

The sea ice and ice shelves around periphery of Antarctica, especially the peninsula (and Admundsen Sea), has been melting though, some of it very rapidly.

The balance usually comes out at around even or, in the case of that study you cited, towards slight gains in ice sheets.

This is likely due to complicated currents and weather in the Southern Ocean, and from how little is known about the El Nino.

By the way, that study you cite didn't take into account ice volume, but just measured the coverage of the sea ice via satellite. It could be the ice is melting, as it did in Greenland, from the bottom up.

At least, these are the facts I gather from reading The Daily Green: Why Isn't Antarctica Melting?, plus the reports about Claire Parkinson's 2002 study.
Test Subject
#31 Old 31st Jan 2008 at 5:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by hszmv
As I said earlier, the only difference between Gore's Carbon Credits and the Medieviel Catholic Church's Indulgences is the amount of words in their name.

Everytime I hold a discussion with people who believe global warming is the next greatest disaster (and in my major, there are alot of people I talk to about this), and assert my opinion that thirty years of (reliable) data is not enough compared with thousands of years climate and that I would simply like more data before I make a conclusion, I am treated like the kid who told his uber-right wing christian parents he doesn't believe in God.

Judging by your post, Daisie, you did read through the whole thread. Almish Nick's ice cap dilemia was mentioned earlier, but people who state that global warming is the next big threat refuse to address it. I want just one person to try and tell me why it is melting in the north and staying the same, even growing, in the south (because CO2 mixture in the atmosphere is an even mix, all parts of the world should experience the same warming trends.).

PS, Nick, do you mind sending me a link? I have a teacher in the subject who might be able to offer some answer. I am curious as to why that is.

Well what I have learned so far is that "History" always repeat itself. global Warming is just history repeating itself. The Ice Age is starting over again and "we" as people are making it go faster with the CO2 mixure in the air. Plus remember that "thousands" of years are not the same. We are talking population BOOM. humans are birthing kids like ants! (ok, that was dramatic but you get what I am saying). Our Atmosphere have not been the same. These gases are not leaving the atmosphere as suppose to. This is called "Greenhouse Effect", when some gases leaves into space and most bounce off the atmosphere and back onto earth, same with the heat the sun is generating. Another factor that is increasing these gases (alone with popullation) is the amount of trash build up. Trash is carried out into dumping fields and buried. Releasing deadly gases into the air. Also dead bodies/cremation is adding more CO2 and harm to the earth. remember the Earth as an old lady. The more pressure put on her back, the more quicker she will collapse.

Also, enviornmental concerns is not alsways about Global Warming! Its about our health (esp those city folks). Here in DC we had a lead poison situation in the water system because of old plumbing. The rivers are filthy and the woods are littered with trash. We need to be concern about the enviornment in "general" and not just about Global Warming.

Quote:
Judging by your post, Daisie, you did read through the whole thread. Almish Nick's ice cap dilemia was mentioned earlier, but people who state that global warming is the next big threat refuse to address it. I want just one person to try and tell me why it is melting in the north and staying the same, even growing, in the south (because CO2 mixture in the atmosphere is an even mix, all parts of the world should experience the same warming trends.).


Well remember now, that the Earth is round, so every part will not get the same experience. The earth tilts for different seasons (warm in the summer/cold in winter). The Earth rotates around the sun (a year) while it turns (a day) and tilt (seasons). So the heat will warm other parts, but the North (facing upwards and towards the sun) will get this effect more, causing Ice to melt and water to rise. Scientist use research like measuring the water level (which is rising above Netherlands).

So, scientist use WAY more complicated words and data that us normal citizens will not understand. Thats why they sometimes explain it "long story short". I personally doubt we can prevent the Earth's climate shift, but we can slow it down.

See it like chemistry.
humans = Enzymes
Climate Change = chemical reaction

We (enzymes) are speeding up climate change (chemical reaction).

Ok thats how I see it. Any suggestions? Or you looking at me like "wtf". hehe

EDITED: Nick, "all" is not the case. Remember some people can over exagerate things. I doubt "ALL" Ice caps are melting, as I said above, the Earth is round and all parts are not getting the same effects. Plus, the further to the poles, the less it will melt. Its TOO cold in the poles for ice to just start melting. Ice will most likely not start melting in the poles intill a few more decades. (but who knows... things always creep up on us)
Field Researcher
#32 Old 1st Feb 2008 at 1:00 PM
But this isn't an anual shrinkage. As Nick's post stated, Antartica is getting larger in the same period of time that the artic is shrinking over many years. If what you are saying was true, the south pole should be just as small right now as the north pole was last summer. But it isn't. The fact that carbon dioxide mixes evenly in our atmosphere (meaning that CO2 mesuared in NYC will be the same as CO2 measured anywhere in the world) coupled with the fact that the poles are not shrinking or growing at the same rates during different times of the year is why Nick and I are curious.

This is the kind of melt we are talking about in the North Pole:



No one doubts that is a significat melt. But that the same melt is not taking place in the Antartic is why some people are scratching their heads. The fact that other major ice deposits around this part of the world are not melting at this same rate is another brain scratcher. Even taking into account the fact that the coldest parts of Antartica are the high evalation interior, the sea level exterior (which would have the same climate as the North Pole all over, which is entirely at sea level) is still growing too.

Seasonal shifts have nothing to do with it. It appears to me to be something local. What that is, I don't know, but if it was global warming, by virtue of the name it should be happening everywhere.
Test Subject
#33 Old 1st Feb 2008 at 9:53 PM
See thats the mistake people are making. CO2 levels are NOT the same everywhere! the CO2 level in New York will not be in other places. Not all CO2 enters the atmosphere. Its like fresh water compared to salt water in the Ocean. The water here at Virginia beach will be more filthy compared to the water in the carribians.

CO2 is not the same everywhere. diffussion takes place, but the Earth is too huge to distribute CO2 to every parts of the world. There is a city in China (forgot the name) that is producing and so much CO2, that the city sits in smog and smoke.
Field Researcher
#34 Old 1st Feb 2008 at 10:13 PM
1. Actually, if you look at a CO2 chart, the rising levels leveled off between the 60s and 70s because of smog and smoke.

2. I'm pretty sure that the CO2 people are worried about is the even spread in the upper atmosphere, not the differance in the lower atmosphere.

3. Even if CO2 in the lower atmosphere made a significant differance, both the artic and antartic are relatively untouched by man (lets face, Santa isn't real, and if he was, the elves would be green), so they should be pretty low. Yet one is shrinking and one is growing (at different rates, no less).

4. In order for the term "global warming" to be properly used, it must be taking place on a global scale and thusly distribution of CO2 must take place. Otherwise it would be called "local warming".
#35 Old 8th Feb 2008 at 12:59 AM
I believe its a serious problem. As usual "someone" is trying to avoid responsibility by placing the problem in the hands of the little person. It seems like its all up to us, what we eat, what we shop, how we transport our bodies. When in fact the ever growing industries could ease it on Mother Earth far much faster an easier by just changing their activities today.
As normal people realise they just don't have all that much power at the end of the day, it will lead to more and more people ignoring it when it causes irrational anxiety and thoughts about the end of the world.Good for the moneymakers, bad for the environment. Rather spend another boring night watching telly, not thinking about global warming...But people are also inherently good, they do change fuel for the house/car blabla, and try to make ecological choices. Question is, will it make the necessary difference?
 
Page 2 of 2
Back to top